Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAUNOVIC AND MILIVOJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections);Violation of Article 13+P1-3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAUNOVIC AND MILIVOJEVIC v. SERBIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections);Violation of Article 13+P1-3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAUNOVIC AND MILIVOJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06
• EGMR, 14.06.2017 - 41683/06

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  On that subject, the Court has in the past acknowledged the existence of non-pecuniary damage on various grounds, such as uncertainty (Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81), anxiety (Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290), feelings of powerlessness and frustration (Papamichalopoulos and Others, cited above), dismay (Iprahim Ülger v. Turkey, no. 57250/00, 29 July 2004), distress (Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 60642/08, 6 November 2012) or damage to the applicant's reputation (Doustaly v. France, 23 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  The Court reaffirms that the margin in this area is wide (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52, and, more recently, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that this provision also implies individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113, and Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-IV).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10226/03

  Yumak und Sadak ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  In particular, any conditions imposed must not thwart the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature - in other words, they must reflect, or not run counter to, the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage (see Hirst, cited above, § 62, and Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, § 109, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  The Court reaffirms that the margin in this area is wide (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52, and, more recently, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 78039/01

  GROSARU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  However, in cases where post-election disputes had not been subject to review by domestic courts, the Court has delivered a separate examination of the complaint under Article 13 (see Grosaru v. Romania, no. 78039/01, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

  GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  On that subject, the Court has in the past acknowledged the existence of non-pecuniary damage on various grounds, such as uncertainty (Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81), anxiety (Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290), feelings of powerlessness and frustration (Papamichalopoulos and Others, cited above), dismay (Iprahim Ülger v. Turkey, no. 57250/00, 29 July 2004), distress (Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 60642/08, 6 November 2012) or damage to the applicant's reputation (Doustaly v. France, 23 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 48555/10

  RIZA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  The Court notes at the outset that in cases where a post-election dispute concerning electoral rights had been subject to review by a domestic court, it has chosen to examine the complaints solely under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention (see Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, § 95, 13 October 2015; Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, § 56, 8 October 2015; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010; and Kerimli and Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 18475/06 and 22444/06, §§ 29-30, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 20799/06

  KERIMOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  The Court notes at the outset that in cases where a post-election dispute concerning electoral rights had been subject to review by a domestic court, it has chosen to examine the complaints solely under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention (see Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, § 95, 13 October 2015; Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, § 56, 8 October 2015; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, §§ 31-32, 30 September 2010; and Kerimli and Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 18475/06 and 22444/06, §§ 29-30, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 31599/96

  CHEMINADE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 41683/06

  The Court notes that proceedings involving electoral disputes, including those resulting in the removal of elected candidates, fall outside the scope of Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as they concern the exercise of political rights and do not, therefore, have any bearing on "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports, 1997-VI, and Cheminade v. France (dec.), no. 31599/96, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 36503/11

  GAHRAMANLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 18475/06

  KERIMLI AND ALIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 28858/95

  GANTCHEV c. BULGARIE

• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 58302/10

  G.K. c. BELGIQUE

  Elle rappelle qu'elle a déjà jugé dans une affaire relative à la démission contestée d'un député serbe qu'un recours civil ne constituait pas un recours effectif dans les circonstances particulières de l'affaire dans la mesure où rien n'indiquait que l'annulation de la lettre de démission litigieuse aurait permis de restaurer le mandat de député du requérant (Paunovic et Milivojevic c. Serbie, no 41683/06, § 48, 24 mai 2016).